Munawaroh and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 77/2024, [2026] HKCA 1435

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 77 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 946 OF 2019 and 1007 OF 2019

(CONSOLIDATED))

_______________

HCAL 946/2019

_______________

and

HCAL 1007/2019

_______________

_______________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung dated 24 August 2023)

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

A. INTRODUCTION

1.On 28 April 2026, the applicants, now acting in person,[1] filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 8 April 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 632).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 23 February 2024, by which the Judge refused their application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 331).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicants stated:

“I would like to inform the Court of Appeal. There are some law error in my decision maker authorities. The Judgement given by the High Court and the both Respondent’s. These decision is very unfair to me and it’s make us liable to remove from Hong Kong to Risk State in our home country where our life is not safe. So I humble requesting to this court to Reconsider our case and do proper investigation because it’s matter related to our life. We don’t want to go back our country because of my children future and life risk. WE HAVE 5 CHILDREN ALL GIRLS SO OUR COUNTRY MIXED-RACE CHILD DISCRIMINATION RISK. PLEASE HELP FOR MY BABY’S FUTURE TO STAY HERE.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants lodged written submissions on 11 May 2026.  In those submissions, the applicants contended that they would be harmed or killed upon refoulement and that the Daughters would not be safe.  The applicants alleged that India and Indonesia would be unsafe as there were cases of murder and kidnapping. The Daughters are born in Hong Kong and the applicants want to stay in Hong Kong for the Daughters’ future as the Daughters are currently all studying in Hong Kong.

6.In our view, the applicants’ application is plainly devoid of merit.  Their assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars or evidence. General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, they have not identified any specific error in the Judgment. Their assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, their allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicants’ intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

10.For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of legal representation for the Daughters in this application is treated as an irregularity without rendering their application a nullity.

The applicants, acting in person